Medical abortion first became legal in the United States in 1973 under the Roe v. Wade supreme court ruling. In this debate, I wish to show that this ruling should be overturned, as abortion goes against the Constitution. I will prove this using logic and clear facts. I will start by defining my terms.

There are many kinds of abortion, but in this debate I will specifically address the type of abortion legalized in Roe v.Wade. That is, abortion before the point of viability. I also wish to include chemical abortion, or abortion induced by the 'Morning After' pill.

Viability: the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb, albeit with medical aid.

Fetus: an unborn human embryo.

Person: a human being.

Now that I have defined the major terms in this debate, I shall allow my opponent the benefit of stating his argument first.

Welcome to DDO. Thank you for the debate and good luck. I accept the definitions.

Access to abortion has improved the lives of women in the U.S. For one thing, it has lessened the health risks faced by women getting abortions. Before the Roe decision, many women seeking abortions had to visit unregulated and often unprofessional illegal practitioners. "The most important benefit [of Roe], of course, has been the end of an era that supported the proliferation of 'back alley butchers' who were motivated by money alone and performed unsafe, medically incompetent abortions that left many women dead or injured," states the Web site of the abortion services provider Planned Parenthood. (1)

Access to abortion also improves women's opportunities. Women who become pregnant at a young age, are often constrained in what they can accomplish because they are forced to raise children. That cuts down on their educational and career choices. Access to abortion allows women to better plan their lives. When women cannot get abortions they have unwanted children, whom they often neglect or mistreat.

"Although most women welcome pregnancy, childbirth and the responsibilities of raising a child at some period in their lives, few events can more dramatically constrain a woman's opportunities than an unplanned child," states the Naral Pro-Choice America Web site. Naral adds that "restrictive abortion laws narrowly circumscribed women's role in society and hindered women from defining their paths through life in the most basic of ways." (2)

What happens when a woman is raped? Or a young girl becomes pregnant through incest? What if the fetus is deformed and unlikely to survive anyway? What is the mother's health is at risk? Also, what if the mother's life is at risk? Abortion should absolutely be legal in cases like these.

In conclusion, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of its own, the woman's decision to have an abortion takes precedence over the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the decision to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a privacy right implicit in the 9th and 14th Amendments, but there are other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. The 4th Amendment, for example, specifies that citizens have "the right to be secure in their persons"; the 13th specifies that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist in the United States." Even if the privacy right cited in Roe v. Wade were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional arguments that imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive process.

First of all, I wish to thank you, Nags, for accepting my first debate on debate.org.

Before I actually address my opponents arguments, I would first like to show that a fetus is, from the moment of conception, a human being. I have already defined a person as a human being; a definition which my opponent has accepted. If I can show that a fetus is human, I will also prove that it is a person, and thus entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights. By doing this, I shall null the various arguments presented by my opponent in favor of abortion, and discredit the primary assumption of Roe v. Wade.

The first question that must be asked is 'what defines humanity?'. What answer would an abortionist give? He might say that a human is a thinking, breathing, independent Homo sapien. The trouble is, a definition like this leaves out those clearly human. For example, a person in a coma does not think. Could he be legally killed because he is inconvenient or potentially dangerous to another? Independence or biological independence does not work either. Say a boy is horribly mangled in a car accident. He cannot breathe or obtain any nutrients or energy himself, so he has to be wired to a machine to live. He is biologically dependent upon the machine for survival, but he is still a human being. His mother cannot disconnect him from the machine (and thus kill him) before he can recover.

No, a human being is formed at the moment of conception, which entitles him/her to the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness which, we, as Americans, believe. How do I know life begins at conception? Aren't the products formed by conception only a potential human, like sperm or egg cells? In short, a fetus is different from sperm or egg cells in the fact that sperm or egg cells only contain half the DNA needed to form a human being. By themselves they will never become a human. They are incomplete. However, when united they become a single, unique human life, separate from the mother by its own DNA and gender, which will define its characteristics for the rest of its life. At no point afterwards does it radically change and become human. It already is.

Now that I have clearly shown that a fetus is indeed human (and thus entitled to human rights), I will refute each of my opponent's arguments.

Nags said: "Access to abortion has improved the lives of women in the U.S. For one thing, it has lessened the health risks faced by women getting abortions. Before the Roe decision, many women seeking abortions had to visit unregulated and often unprofessional illegal practitioners. 'The most important..."

I'm not going to post the rest of the paragraph, because I still have not mastered the cut/paste feature on my computer (yes, I am very new to this form of debate). It seems that my opponent is defending a something by saying that, if it becomes illegal, it may potentially hurt those who choose to break that law.

Here is an equivalent example: a burglar breaks into a house and is injured by the homeowners protecting their property. Afterwards, there is a movement to legalize burglary so that, in the future, burglars will not be harmed trying to violate another's rights. The logic behind the movement is absurd; if you act outside the law, then the law cannot protect you from the harm you would bring to yourself.

That first sentence summarizes the next two paragraphs quite well, so once again I will post only it. The entire argument is irrelevant when it is considered that the fetus is harmed more by the abortion than the woman is benefited by it. If the woman does not want a child she may simply give up for adoption (I know adoption is a long and difficult process. I would like for that to change, but it still does not justify abortion). Also, it is better for a child to be neglected and mistreated than to have no chance at life whatsoever.

Nags said: "What happens when a woman is raped? Or a young girl becomes pregnant through incest? What if the fetus is deformed and unlikely to survive anyway? What is the mother's health is at risk? Also, What if the mother's life is at risk? Abortion should be absolutely legal in cases like these."

My opponent has given no argument as to why abortion should be legal in these cases (which, by the way, are all rather rare reasons for obtaining an abortion)[1], and seems to leave it up to me to refute them.

I completely disagree with my opponents assumption. In the cases of rape and incest, the fetus has committed no fault of its own. For the mother to simply abandon the fetus to its death would be wrong. When the fetus is deformed or not likely to survive, it should not be denied the chance to live. It may not live life to the fullest, but it doesn't deserve to die. If the mother's health or life is at risk, then it is at risk from the birth itself, not the presence of the fetus. The simple answer is to have a Cesarean section. But remember, the life of the mother and the baby are equal; you cannot choose who has more right to live. Abortion is not the answer in any of these examples.

Nags said: "In conclusion, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies."

A perfectly true statement. However, my opponent seems to use this statement to apply to the fetus's body as well as the mother's. The fetus is a person by itself, as I have shown, and thus the mother has no right to kill/harm it. Yes, the mother's life and body are significantly affected by the pregnancy, but she still cannot harm another because of it. She is responsible for her child.

Nags said: "Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights."

There is no evidence (at least that I know of) that human life begins at viability. The point of viability is not a certain time. It has changed over the years as medicine has advanced, and is still an open topic for debate. It is merely another stage in human development. Nothing vital in the fetus itself changes, just its relationship to the mother. Its DNA does not alter; It is the same living being. In a previous analogy, I showed that a biologically dependent life form can still be human.

Why is viability used to determine humanity if it has nothing to do with humanity? In brief, viability is a standard set by society to justify abortion. It is another qualification of 'personhood' we have created to ease our consciences. Much the same was done 150 years ago, when slavery was legal. Back then, slaves were counted as only 2/3 of a person on the census. Once again, history repeats itself.

My opponent's application of the 13th amendment is faulty. To apply it to parenthood would justify parents abandoning their children. If you are old enough to be a mother or father, then you are old enough to handle that which comes with it. If you are not, then you may give your unwanted child to the care of another. You may not leave that child, in the care of no one, to die from neglect.

Nags said: "Even if the privacy right cited in Roe v. Wade were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional arguments that imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive process."

The right to privacy comes after the right to life. I would greatly like to see those "numerous other constitutional arguments" supposedly in favor of abortion.

I must stop now, as I am out of characters, even though I have much more to say.

I Thank you once again, Nags, for accepting my debate. I have found it most enjoyable. I wish you good luck as well.

"If I can show that a fetus is human, I will also prove that it is a person, and thus entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights."
-Fair enough.

"The first question that must be asked is 'what defines humanity?'. What answer would an abortionist give? He might say that a human is a thinking, breathing, independent Homo sapien. The trouble is, a definition like this leaves out those clearly human. For example, a person in a coma..."
-No. My opponent has made a definition up for me, which I do not accept.
-My definition of human being is: "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens."http://dictionary.reference.com...
-My opponent's whole case about people in comas are irrelevant to this debate.

"In short, a fetus is different from sperm or egg cells in the fact that sperm or egg cells only contain half the DNA needed to form a human being. By themselves they will never become a human. They are incomplete. However, when united they become a single, unique human life, separate from the mother by its own DNA and gender, which will define its characteristics for the rest of its life. At no point afterwards does it radically change and become human. It already is."
-Let me remind you of the definition of human being: any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. And individual: a single organism capable of independent existence. And organism: a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. A fetus does not fit the definitions of any of these words. The fetus is entirely dependent on the host woman. If it's host dies, it will die. The fetus only has the potential to be a human being, it never just is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body.

"Now that I have clearly shown that a fetus is indeed human (and thus entitled to human rights)"
-No, you didn't.

"It seems that my opponent is defending a something by saying that, if it becomes illegal, it may potentially hurt those who choose to break that law."
-On the matter of abortion, yes I am.

"Here is an equivalent example: a burglar breaks into a house and is injured by the homeowners protecting their property. Afterwards, there is a movement to legalize burglary so that, in the future, burglars will not be harmed trying to violate another's rights. The logic behind the movement is absurd; if you act outside the law, then the law cannot protect you from the harm you would bring to yourself."
-Equivalent example? I beg to differ. Burglarly is defined as: "Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary." (1) How are abortion and burglarly equivalent? Abortion should be legal because a woman's life is at risk, among other reasons. A burglar knowingly commits a crime under his/her own will knowing that his/her life is at risk. A mother who is raped does not conceive a baby under her own will. Your example and logic is ridiculous.

"Also, my source does not show that legalization of abortion decreased deaths caused by abortion."
-Actually, it does. It shows that deaths from abortions decreased after Roe vs. Wade. Thank you for proving my point.

The rest of my opponent's 2nd round argument centers around refuting my points. The only way he refutes my points is by claiming that fetuses are human beings. I proved that fetuses are not human beings, so all my points stand. He tried only twice to refute my points without mentioning fetuses as humans, so I will refute what he said now.

"Much the same was done 150 years ago, when slavery was legal. Back then, slaves were counted as only 2/3 of a person on the census. Once again, history repeats itself."
-No, slaves were counted as 3/5 as a person, not 2/3. This was because of the Three-Fifths Compromise (2) not because of viability. Please learn history before you start preaching it.

"My opponent's application of the 13th amendment is faulty. To apply it to parenthood would justify parents abandoning their children."
-It isn't applied to parenthood. Parenthood is different than a woman carrying a fetus. So the 13th amendment does count as a constitutional reason on why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

My opponent did not even try to refute my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

My opponent's whole debate centers on a fetus being a human being, which it is not. My opponent has failed to prove that a fetus is a human being, and I have proved that a fetus is not a human being. All my points stand, my opponent has none.

Nags said: "-No. My opponent has made a definition up for me, which I do not accept."

I apologize, I was making a guess based on what other abortionists had said.

Nags said: "-My definition of human being is: "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens."

I agree with this definition. However, I do NOT agree with the following definition of 'individual', which does not apply to human beings. Why? go back to my previous analogy (which my opponent disregarded as 'irrelevant'), the one referring to the boy who was mangled in a car accident. The boy, like a fetus, is a biologically dependent life form, as in a life form that cannot maintain its own biological processes without outside aid. So, it is logical to conclude that my opponent's definition of 'individual' does not apply to humans, as humans (in the boy's case) can be biologically dependent. Nags, you must realize that whatever definition of 'individual' or 'human' you use that excludes fetuses will also exclude others who are clearly human. Again I say that viability cannot be used to determine humanity. My point stands. A fetus is a human.

Before my opponent points out that a fetus is not 'whole' in the sense that it does not have all its proper parts or components (http://www.merriam-webster.com...), remember that there are many unfortunate human beings who are also not whole in that sense. The meaning of 'whole' in the definition of 'individual' is: 'consisting of an undivided unit' (the word 'indivisible' before the word indicates the meaning). See the above link for the definition source.

Nags said: "The fetus only has the potential to be a human being, it never just is a human being. Because it is unable to sustain independent life, and it uses the organ systems of the host woman, it is, physically and hormonally, part of the woman's body."

As I have shown, the fetus is indeed a human being by my opponent's definition of 'human'. I have also shown that just because a life cannot exist independently doesn't prove it isn't human. The fetus is physically attached to the mother's body, but the fetus is separate from the mother's body by its own (unquestionably human) DNA, thus the fetus cannot possibly be part of the woman's body.

Burglary is defined as "the act of breaking and entering a dwelling at night to commit a felony (as theft) ; broadly : the entering of a building with the intent to commit a crime"http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Note also that his source says that there is 'usually' no victim present during a burglary, not 'always'.

Nags said: "How are abortion and burglary equivalent?"

Abortion before Roe v. Wade and burglary are equivalent in the fact that they are (or were) illegal, and those performing them could potentially be harmed.

Nags said: "Abortion should be legal because a woman's life is at risk, among other reasons."

That is rarely the case (see my source for the previous round). A burglar's life could also be at risk if he is starving and needs to break in to get food. However, there are other options available to both the burglar and the woman instead of breaking the law.

Nags said: "A burglar knowingly commits a crime under his/her own will knowing that his/her life is at risk. A mother who is raped does not conceive a baby under her own will. Your example and logic is ridiculous."

Your argument seems to imply that none of the women who got abortions before Roe v. Wade were aware it was illegal, and that they did not do it under their own free will (absurd implications). If you do not know a certain action could put your life at risk, then it is too bad for you. As I showed in round two, it is irrelevant if a woman is raped. My analogy is valid, and the point stands, not even shaken.

Nags said: "-Actually, it does. It shows that deaths from abortions decreased after Roe vs. Wade. Thank you for proving my point."

My source shows that there were less deaths from abortion after Roe v. Wade, but that was not your original point. You said that access to abortion improved women's lives. I said that the legalization of abortion did not decrease the number of women dying from it. Look at my source again. It shows a chart indicating the number of women that died from abortions from 1941 to 1980. It shows the number of recorded deaths caused by abortion decreased because of better medical technology and the use of penicillin and sulfa, before Roe v. Wade. The legalization or access to abortion had nothing to do with it. Here is a quote from the source itself: "In 1973 [the year Roe v. Wade legalized abortion] there should have been a really sharp drop in women dying. The chart, however, shows that there was no such drop. The line didn't even blip. The previous rate of decline actually slowed, to flatten out in the late 70s and 80s. According to the U.S. vital statistics, as anyone can see, legalization of abortion did not save almost any women's lives."

Nags said: "-No, slaves were counted as 3/5 as a person, not 2/3. This was because of the Three-Fifths Compromise (2) not because of viability. Please learn history before you start preaching it."

I deeply apologize for the inaccuracy. I was relying solely on my memory from a book I read years ago. I was trying to make a point about mankind attempting to de-humanize his fellows throughout history, with slaves 150 years ago, and with fetuses today.

Nags said: "-It isn't applied to parenthood. Parenthood is different than a woman carrying a fetus. So the 13th amendment does count as a constitutional reason on why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy."

By these definitions, a pregnant woman is a parent, and thus abortion is indeed applied to parenthood. My point stands firm.

Nags said: "My opponent did not even try to refute my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments."

I apologize, but as I said earlier, I ran out of characters. Each of those arguments deal with the right to privacy, however the right to Life supersedes the implicit right to privacy.

Nags said: "My opponent's whole debate centers on a fetus being a human being, which it is not."

On the contrary, I have proven otherwise.

Nags said: "My opponent has failed to prove that a fetus is a human being, and I have proved that a fetus is not a human being. All my points stand, my opponent has none."

Actually, I believe the exact opposite is true. My opponent tried to exclude the unborn as human with a sneaky definition of the word 'individual', which I have shown cannot apply to human beings and is thus illegitimate. Every one of my opponent's arguments for abortion have been easily answered with logic and clear facts. He has failed utterly to so much as ruffle any of my own arguments.

No! I am nearly out of characters. I have a great deal more to say and address. Anyway, this has been fun, Nags. Would you like to try this again in a longer debate?

In the end, I believe I have given enough evidence to show that abortion should indeed be illegal in the U.S. Vote pro.

"I agree with this definition. However, I do NOT agree with the following definition of 'individual', which does not apply to human beings. Why? go back to my previous analogy (which my opponent disregarded as 'irrelevant'), the one referring to the boy who was mangled in a car accident. The boy, like a fetus, is a biologically dependent life form, as in a life form that cannot maintain its own biological processes without outside aid. So, it is logical to conclude that my opponent's definition of 'individual' does not apply to humans, as humans (in the boy's case) can be biologically dependent. Nags, you must realize that whatever definition of 'individual' or 'human' you use that excludes fetuses will also exclude others who are clearly human. Again I say that viability cannot be used to determine humanity. My point stands. A fetus is a human.

Here is a more correct definition of an individual: "Inseparable; being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole.""

1) Your definition of individual is the adjective form. We are using individual in the noun form. Also, my definition of individual is the biological definition, yours is not. So, my definition is the one that shall be used for the debate.
2) My definition of individual is "a single organism capable of independent existence." A person in a coma/ a person on life support would still be an individual according to my definition contrary to the opinion of my opponent. The most fundamental difference between a fetus and a person on life support is that the fetus is entirely dependent on the host woman's body to survive. Only the host woman can carry the fetus. If she takes the fetus out, it will die. She can not hire another woman to carry the fetus, as it will die. The fetus is exclusively dependent on the one specific host woman. But this is not true for the person on life support. The person on life support can be taken off life support for a set amount of time and still survive. The person on life support can taken off life support and transferred to another life support machine.
3) Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being.
--- I have proved that my definitions of humans/ individuals fit the criteria for every single person that has already born. I have also proved that a fetus is not a human.

"Before my opponent points out that a fetus is not 'whole' in the sense that it does not have all its proper parts or components (http://www.merriam-webster.com......), remember that there are many unfortunate human beings who are also not whole in that sense. The meaning of 'whole' in the definition of 'individual' is: 'consisting of an undivided unit' (the word 'indivisible' before the word indicates the meaning). See the above link for the definition source."
- This point is void. I proved above that my definition makes more sense and it works.

"That is rarely the case (see my source for the previous round). A burglar's life could also be at risk if he is starving and needs to break in to get food. However, there are other options available to both the burglar and the woman instead of breaking the law."
-A burglar can get money by begging on the streets or even (gasp!) getting a real job. A woman has no other options to protecting her life besides abortion.

"My source shows that there were less deaths from abortion after Roe v. Wade, but that was not your original point. You said that access to abortion improved women's lives."
-Umm... I think dieing less often would be an improved life. Once again, thanks for proving my point.

"Burglarly thing"
-The whole burglarly topic has gone out of control, I will let the voters decide who won the arguments on this topic and if it is even relevant to the debate.

"Parenthood ... By these definitions, a pregnant woman is a parent, and thus abortion is indeed applied to parenthood. My point stands firm."
-By these definitions only a pregnant woman is a parent. The man would not be considered a parent. You can't have a baby to have an abortion without a man (considering the baby was not conceived through a lab) and a woman, which is two people. But by your definition, only the woman is a parent. So your point about parenthood is void.

"I apologize, but as I said earlier, I ran out of characters. Each of those arguments deal with the right to privacy, however the right to Life supersedes the implicit right to privacy."
-Yes, they do deal with the right to privacy, thanks for the info. Then you stated "however the right to Life supersedes the implicit right to privacy." You have to prove this to void my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. You did not prove it, you just simply stated your opinion. Since my opponent left my points about the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments uncontended, they stand.

"Actually, I believe the exact opposite is true. My opponent tried to exclude the unborn as human with a sneaky definition of the word 'individual', which I have shown cannot apply to human beings and is thus illegitimate. Every one of my opponent's arguments for abortion have been easily answered with logic and clear facts. He has failed utterly to so much as ruffle any of my own arguments."
1) I have proved above that my definition of individual is not sneaky and does work.
2) You either helped support my arguments or didn't attempt to refute them for the most part.
3) You didn't really put forth any arguments. Almost all your characters were spent attempting to refute my arguments.

"If I can show that a fetus is human, I will also prove that it is a person, and thus entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights."
1) You failed to show that a fetus is a human.
2) I have shown that a fetus is not a human due to the definitions of human being: any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. And individual: a single organism capable of independent existence. And organism: a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. A fetus does not fit any of these definitions, so it is not a human.
3) Since you failed to show that a fetus is a human/person, you have failed to show that it is entitled to the rights provided and protected in the Bill of Rights.

My opponent pretty much attempted one argument through the whole debate, which is that a fetus is a human. I have proven that a fetus is not a human. I have also proven that abortion should be legal because:
1) Abortion improves the lives of women
2) Abortion improves women's opportunities
3) Abortion is allowed because women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies
4) Abortion is supported by the Constitution